Immigration Law in Arizona

[Grames]

In this case, the state is using licencing law for something that is outside the bounds of the state's purview. The Arizona law should have been overturned.

You really should read this opinion to prevent yourself from making such plainly false statements. The federal law explicitly permits state licensing laws to require compliance with federal immigration laws and uses the exact word "licensing". There is no possibility of any confusion. There is no state-federal conflict or constitutional conflict.

[softwareNerd]

You really should read this opinion to prevent yourself from making such plainly false statements. The federal law explicitly permits state licensing laws to require compliance with federal immigration laws and uses the exact word "licensing". There is no possibility of any confusion. There is no state-federal conflict or constitutional conflict.

I was not saying that the SCOTUS justices used that reasoning. The point is that the state can do anything and call it licencing. If the SCOTUS judge's political philosophy is anti-immigrant and pro-states rights, he will find for the state in a case like this. If not, it is easy enough to argue that the state is using the term licence more broadly than commonly understood and more broadly that the federal statue envisaged, or it could be argued that the state can apply licencing sanctions only in the context of a Federally-determine violation of immigration law. Either rationalization is easy enough to make.

[Grames]

I was not saying that the SCOTUS justices used that reasoning. The point is that the state can do anything and call it licencing. If the SCOTUS judge's political philosophy is anti-immigrant and pro-states rights, he will find for the state in a case like this. If not, it is easy enough to argue that the state is using the term licence more broadly than commonly understood and more broadly that the federal statue envisaged, or it could be argued that the state can apply licencing sanctions only in the context of a Federally-determine violation of immigration law. Either rationalization is easy enough to make.

It is not easy enough to argue on the meaning of the term license or the plaintiffs would done so and won. There is nothing at all unconventional about the Arizona business licensing process compared to the practice in every other state for two hundred years now. That the state can apply licencing sanctions only in the context of a Federally-determined violation of immigration law is exactly the argument in defense of the law.

I am just taken aback at the cynicism you are displaying here. You would apparently prefer a naked rationalization that gives the decision you want to justified logical argument thats gives an undesired outcome. I'll take the methodically correct reasoning every time because it is open to correction, whereas people willing to rationalize are corrupt and unreachable by argumentation.

[softwareNerd]

Alabama Republicans are almost done passing a law along the lines of the one in Arizona. This one appears to go further than the Arizona laws.